1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiff zamindar against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court upholding the dismissal by the lower appellate Court of the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for damages for cutting certain trees on plot 249/1 which is within the zamindari of the plaintiff. The transactions in regard to this number are as follows: In the settlement of F. 1275 (1871 A.D.) the No. 249 was recorded as a sir of Bahadur Singh, a co-sharer, and it is not argued that entry was incorrect. There was no entry that the land at that time was grove. The land has still been recorded as sir and comes within the definition of sir in Section 4(12)(a), Act 3 of 1901 (U.P. Land Revenue Act), which is
land recorded as sir in the last Record-of-Rights framed before the commencement of this Act and continuously so recorded since, or which but for error or omission would have been so continuously recorded.
2. The next transaction in regard to this land is an auction sale on 20th January 1921, on a decree passed against Bahadur Singh proprietor. On this decree the entire zamindari share of Bahadur Singh was sold, and it was purchased by one Ajudhia, who subsequently sold it to the plaintiff. Subsequent to that sale on 1st July 1925, Bahadur Singh sold his exproprietary tenancy in this grove to the defendants 1 and 2. The question is whether defendants 1 and 2 by this purchase from Bahadur Singh acquired the right to cut the trees in this grove.
3. The only argument which has been addressed to us on Letters Patent appeal is ground 1 in the memorandum of appeal,
because the character of the land ceased on its conversion into a grove, and Bahadur Singh did not become an exproprietary tenant,
4. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that with the planting of a grove the land lost its character of sir. This argument is founded upon the fact that in Act 2 of 1901 'land' is defined as land let or held for agricultural purposes. But this definition of land is not found in Act 3 of 1901 in which occurs the definition of sir. No authority has been shown to us for the proposition that the planting of a grove on a sir land results in the sir land losing its character of sir. Reference was made to Bhagwan Din v. Piari Lal  42 All. 483, but in that ruling it was held that the land in question though entered as a sir in the F. 1305 settlement was wrongly entered as the persons then holding the land were not proprietors. Accordingly that ruling is no authority whatever for the proposition in question. Reference is also made to a ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported in Kesho Prasad v. Sheo Pargash Ojah A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 247. In this it was held that a grove is not land held for agricultural purposes within the meaning of the Agra Tenancy Act. It has no bearing on the question before us.
5. We consider that the decree of the lower appellate Court was correct, and accordingly we dismiss the Letters Patent appeal with costs.